MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with business or profession”, these participation interests are required to be treated as capital assets. Under section 45, “any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset, effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54 E, 54EA

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [PAN: AAGCA5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

housing, factory and corporate office thereby virtually preventing all from ingress and egress. In the meantime the secured creditor – Bank of Baroda, which had earlier advanced loan against the security of all the assets, including Stock-in-Trade, had moved petition before DRT (Debts Recovery Tribunal) and also under SARFAESI Act (The 4 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 Securitization and Reconstruction

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

housing, factory and corporate office thereby virtually preventing all from ingress and egress. In the meantime the secured creditor – Bank of Baroda, which had earlier advanced loan against the security of all the assets, including Stock-in-Trade, had moved petition before DRT (Debts Recovery Tribunal) and also under SARFAESI Act (The 4 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 Securitization and Reconstruction

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing